> "It is the _hunger which drives the hunt_; it is
appetite,
> desire, and acknowledgement of my ignorance which moves me
> forward. I stalk the unknown, knowing that I do not know,
> what I do not know, and knowing also that by acknowlegment
> of the void within me, that void may be filled by God.
> That is my prayer."
>
>
> Melody:
> Good discussion here , Gene.
> I found myself nodding in agreement through it. I wonder,
> what part does 'Trust' and 'Faith' play for you in
> stalking the unknown and in the surrendering?
>
> And does there come a time when Trust or Faith is no
> longer needed? I'm reminded of a statement Joseph Campbell
> once made after being asked if he were a man of faith. He
> said, "I don't need faith, I have experience".
>
> Best regards,
> Melody

Dear Melody,

Thank you for your comments. As to your questions, to properly
answer them,
I would need to see how you use those words in the context of
your own
expression. Trust and faith are very powerful and pivotal words
for some
people, and count for nothing in the speech of others. I take no
issue with
either usage; but for me to give you an answer that is meaningful
to you, I
would need to see just how you use those words in context. That
having been
said, I will say this:

In using the words trust or faith, we must distinguish between
two distinct
underlying contexts in which these words are embedded. In the
first
context, and the most common one, the speaker who uses the words
'trust' or
'faith' assumes that there 'are' solid stepping-stones, a
structure upon
which to stretch oneself, like hanging laundry on a clothsline.
This
context sees a possibility of a progressive path or a
hierarchical
structure which is 'real' in the same sense that the speaker
assumes that
'the speaker is real'. This context is the 'relativist context',
whose
reality is founded upon a 'prior reality', and so on, similar to
the
'Turtle Island' model of how the Urth is supported in space; that
it rests
upon the back of a giant turtle, which in turn rests upon another
turtle,
and so on ad-infinitum. Where is the 'first turtle', and upon
what does
that turtle rest?

In the 'relativist context', trust and faith relate to
actualities; past
events which are 'real', present 'realities' and future
'possibilities'.
Certainly, we have seen challenges to the 'reality' of past,
present, and
future; such challenges usually 'cause' the one of 'trust and
faith' to
cling all the more tightly to the 'issues of faith' which are
threatened by
a non-relativistic viewpoint, such as Nondualism.

Nondualism allows one to simply 'let go', because the Nondual
viewpoint
prescribes "no-hazard" as a way of Being; this way of
Being denies those
elements of reality which would call for trust and faith. Without
'hazard',
and thus nothing to defend against or to protect, faith and trust
are quite
_moot_.

I have discussed the 'relativistic context of faith and trust'; I
now go on
to discuss the 'other' context, which is more difficult to
describe. I will
label this other context to be the 'functional context'. (This is
not to
imply the opposite of 'dysfunctional'; I use the word
'functional' to
describe 'how it works', not 'how it should work'. )

In the 'functional' or 'functionalist' context, faith and trust
are seen as
semantic directors only, not as solid and real things. In this
context, one
who 'trusts' is merely speaking the word in order to make a
statement about
something; the speaker does not mean to imply that 'they trust',
beyond the
use of the word in the sentence. "I trust that you
understand what I just
said". "I have faith in your ability to wade through
these abstruse
laterallisms and to have a bit of fun as you do so".

The 'functional' context uses words as does the circus-performer
use the
trapeze; merely as a means of getting from one point to another,
quickly
and with perhaps a daring style, and often without a safety-net.
The
'functionalist' does not ascribe 'reality' to the things that
words _seem
to point to_; words are merely relay-points on a huge, shifting
map of
meaning, which is the 'mind'. Communication is seen as a 'thing
in itself',
and a thing to be done well.

The 'relativist' and the 'absolutist' are aroused to speak, much
as the
grumpy bear from hibernation; annoying challenges to the
'reality' of that
reactive creature are met with returns as 'solid' as the
challenge is seen
to be. To this creature, which prefers to slumber and dream of
solid worlds
and solid rewards, 'faith' is as concrete as the log in which he
snores.
'Articles of faith' are for this somnambulist, the very heart and
soul
which is identity itself; thus this reactive grouch, hearing
'sacred words'
used in a way which is an insult to his 'identity', must then be
obligated
to destroy the 'blasphemer'. It is this 'pragmatic' bruin, armed
with teeth
and claws, who then must 'own the lexicon'; in other words, it is
the
'relativist' and the 'absolutist' who fight to be in control of
exactly how
words 'should be used and defined'. In this comical battle, the
fur flies,
as each roars at the other, while the 'functionalist' moves past
the
battleground, free of obligation, using words as navigational
points only.

To summarize the above word-play into a whole, I am talking about
attachment and identification. Certainly, there is such thing as
accuracy,
but if the hearer imagines the target to be other than that to
which the
speaker is aiming, the speaker is accused of inaccuracy. If our
goal is
freedom, we cannot attain freedom through the bondage of
attachment and
identification. Taking that scenario to its bloody finish, there
can be
only ONE 'free person', the one who 'owns the lexicon'. The
fascist/authoritarian person, bound to rigid assumptions of
concrete
'realities', is obligated to homogenize all others into an image
of
himself. This _one way only_ tendency is actuated soley to
protect assumed
identity; beyond that, words have no use to the absolutist. For
that one,
words act as the 'proof of tribal membership', and that fascistic
fanatic
hyperactively scores and ranks others by the standard of themself
and their
precious identity. Seeing this activity of humans, we can then
see that the
warring tribes of today, are fighting over the ownership of a
dictionary.

For the consideration of all, I would like to share something
that I have
been considering for a while. This concerns those who participate
in USENET
newsgroups. I say this partially in mild jest, but also with
concern that I
may refer to an actual disorder or syndrome.

As a longtime USENET participant, I have noticed what I call
"USENET
Shock". This is a 'condition' which can apparently effect
anyone who
indulges in that vast realm of stimulation which is USENET.

The symptoms of USENET Shock Syndrome (USS) include the
following:

_1 The assumption that one must not only communicate, but must do
so in
such a way as to (a) avoid being flamed, put down, ridiculed,
scorned,
jeered, made fun of, or worse yet, ignored, and (b) to do so with
a
distinctive style.

_3 (terminal symptoms) One quits one's job, fails to eat or
bathe, and
spends 20 hrs per day in interminable 'debate' on USENET. Because
the modem
is tying up the phone line, one's friends eventually fade away.
The spouse
leaves and the cat starves.

And so, I come to the Nonduality Solon, which is distinctly NOT
USENET, but
I have my ingrained USENET habits; terse ping-pong style
exchanges,
one-upmanship, sarcasm, etc.
I must realize that I 'have' USS; I must feed the cat, bathe, and
call my
friends by phone. I swear not to spend more than 2 hrs per day on
USENET,
and then, to find and share in less-stressful newsgroups, such as
[alt.basketweaving.underwater].

Better yet, I come to the Nonduality Solon, and relax. I need not
reply, I
need not read, I need not think. I can sleep if I want.
Eventually I will
get around to expressing myself. No hurry. By reading the
excellent,
non-competetive, loving postings, I learn that it is possible for
me to
coexist with other people, without armor or weapons. I learn to
let down
and relax. I realize that my 'mission' is to have compassion for
_myself_.
And so, I cannot flog myself, and I cease to flog others. Peace
reigns. The
cat is happy. The dishes are washed. All is well.

Is USS really any different than living a 'normal' life?

Anyway, just my semi-humorous offering about a serious thing. And
I thank
Ritch for his kind participation. I feel that I am among friends
here.

> >>To jump from "that's not me" to
"everythings me" is to
> miss a wonderful layer inbetween...which says you're not
> me, and I love you and honor you anyway. <s>

Now speaks Judi, whose tongue tends to be as sharp as her wits:

> >You call it *wonderful* because that's all you can come
> up with in light of your separate position. And if you can
> be honest with yourself and take a deeper look into what
> you call *wonderful and love*
> >is nothing more than saying "I'm suffering here in
my
> aloneness and my ignorance." And that is what people
call
> love. But that is not what love is. Real love is
> Understanding, it is Wisdom itself. So my advice is to
> courageously seek wisdom, and not stop along the way with
> all the sugar coating.

Now asks Melody, having felt once again the lash of the Divine
Tongue:

> >Dear Gene,
>
> >It's my guess that the List may be getting as weary of
> these "back and forths" as I am.
>
> >I feel I have used the 'material' of it, all that I can.
>
> >Gene, I trust your insights. Judi seems to. What to do
> with all of this?

Bruce riposted (and just in time, I might add!)

> Gene is currently looking for
> his striped referee shirt,
> lanyard, and whistle. He has
> not to my knowledge accepted
> the mediator/arbitrator role
> as of yet, and is probably
> contemplating referring the
> entire matter to the wisdom
> of The United State Senate --
> or perhaps conferring with
> the Esoteric Master
> previously known as Solomon,
> Son of David and King of the
> Israelites.

Thanks, Bruce. As Soloman, I would have no choice but to ask Judi
and Melody;

"Grrrlz, " (I know that Sol would never say that,
Okay?)

"You come before me, disputing a rumored 'self', or as some
call it, a
'Self'. Each of you claims ownership of this, uhhh, supposed
'thing'. You
have both claimed to have 'it', or at least 'knowledge' of 'it'.
"

"Here is my Kingly Judgement! I hereby award to each of you,
your very own
'self/Self'. In so doing, I state that Judi is Judi, and that
Melody is
Melody. May any confusion of this matter be dispelled by this, my
Kingly
Decree!"

[The crowd in the palace is heard to be mumbling; this gets Sol's
attention:]

Sol: "What's that, back there? Do you dispute my Royal and
Divine Prerogative?"

Peasant: "Um, no, yer lardship, we wuz jest a bit
flabbergasted that them
wimmen gets to have a 'self', when none of us just plain old
folks, gets to
have one. That's all, yer honor, sir."

Sol: [Groaning] "Look for a Kingly Decree, to be posted on
the Palace Door,
very soon, which will alleveiate this, er, shortcoming. You were
right, sir
peasant, to speak up."

Phil: "Your Kingship, we philosophers were wondering, how it
is, that you
have solved the prime mystery, one which has plagued us for many
centuries,
in a brief moment of Kingly Meditation? Surely, Your Highness, as
always
you are correct, as befits your Royal Wisdom; but may I ask,
humbly, just
how You are so informed? Upon what eternal edifice did (or does,)
this
absolute knowledge of self, repose? How are we, the most educated
men of
the realm, (so justly administered by YourSelf, Your Highness!)
to scale
that lofty peak, and to glimpse this jewel of glittering wisdom,
upon which
your Kingly eye has so obviously rested, thus to attain a similar
wisdom,
if of a lower calibre, as befits our rank? In other words, O
Great King,
how do you know?"

Sol: [Wisely scratching his well-groomed beard] "Phil, as
usual, you are a
'royal pain in the ass'. But rather than order your immediate
execution, I
will let you in on my source."

Phil: [Eyes bulging in excitement] " Your tender mercies are
graciously
accepted, O my King; and I would be deeply honored to hear of the
source of
Your Ineffable Wisdom! Pray tell, Your Highness; should I sit
upon yon
divan, lest the shock of your revealing, send me to the floor, in
a grand
swoon?"

Sol: "Nay, good Phil, for it is but a simple telling, but a
long time in
the understanding; and herein lies the difference between I and
thou. It is
less of ranking of royalty, than ranking of experience; less of
experience
than of knowing; and less of knowing, than of Being. For the
experience of
knowing of Being, is the knowing of the experience of self.
"

Phil: [Seems somewhat stunned... ] "Does your Majesty
propose, or state,
that it is experience itself, which is your informant?"

Sol: "Well understood, philosopher. Do you wish to ponder
that?"

Phil: "Yes, Your Majesty; I shall ponder it, even until I
have the same, or
a similar, experience. Thank you, my One King, for your great
gift of
eventual wisdom. Clearly, I am but a babe, compared to thine
Royal Self. "

Sol: "You may note, Phil, that While there are obvious
differences in our
respective ages, and therefore our experience and thus wisdom,
that I do
not mock your ignorance; neither do I scathe your inexperience.
This, I
state to be of a higher order of wisdom, than even that which you
now set
to ponder. Do you take my words?"

Phil: [Startled] "Your most Gracious Majesty, I take not
your meaning! Am I
amiss?"

Sol: "I have stated, philosopher, a fact of wisdom, to which
even your
well-seasoned ears seem to be deaf. Shall I restate my
pronouncement?"

Phil: "I admit to befuddlement, Your Highness; I know not of
what you
speak. I ask humbly for you to repeat, if you please, what it was
you have
just said. And this time, I will listen with all of my wisdom and
knowledge
at the forefront."

Sol: "What I say unto you, is this: That there is no
knowledge of self, or
of Self, which is so valuable, as to transcend that of a good
relationship
of one person to another. Do you agree, or disagree, with this
point?"

Phil: "Royal Sire, I do not hesitate to accept the truth you
offer, even
though I see not, it's applicability in this moment. Would you
care to
elucidate, O King?"

Sol: "Certainly, Phil. I am genuinely glad you are
interested. Now; do you
agree that there is a place and a time, and a proper method, of
castigation?"

Phil: "Yes, Lord King; such is the role of teacher of the
young, or that of
manager of foolish slaves. "

Sol: "Quite so. Now tell me this, Phil; If the teacher
wrongly castigates
the child, what is the result?"

Phil: "Lord, you know, as do I, that the child who is
wrongly castigated,
will resent such an unwise teacher; and that a teacher so unwise,
is so
seen by his student, thus effectively negating the efforts of
teaching".

Phil: "Woe be unto such an unwise manager, O King; for a
slave treated
wrongly, will be all the less obedient, and will in fact,
deliberately
bring calamity to the home, in retaliation for such
mistreatment".

Sol: "What then is the use of castigation,
philosopher?"

Phil: "Castigation is to be used only to prevent, and not to
cause,
calamity; Castigation is seen as an act of last resort, O King;
in fact,
castigation has caused more misery than has calamity itself, due
to the
nature of man and woman. Do I speak truely, O king?"

Sol: "Rightly so, Phil. Now I ask this; of friendhip or
castigation, which
is the proper currency of relationship? Of which, does the wise
person
barter, and of which does the wise person seek?"

Phil: "O King, the wise take great stock of friendship, and
wouldst soon
leave behind their parcel of castigation, if but they could, in
all wisdom.
And further, O King, it is that seed of castigation, which if
improperly
planted, does grow into the miserable tree of calamity."

Sol: "Again, wisely spoken. Now, Phil, inform me of this;
where do the wise
carry their parcel of castigation?"

Phil: "O king, the wise carry castigation only in their
hearts, for that is
where castigation is aimed, by one who is wise; and further, the
heart that
carries castigation, knows of both the pain and the wisdom of
such, and
that castigation is both a pain, and a wisdom, of the
heart."

Sol: "You speak wisely, philosopher; you are worthy of your
rank. Now, wise
one, suppertime draweth near, and our banter must come to an end,
as
enjoyable as it has been. But one last question for you. It is
this; of
what place has castigation, in the teaching of wisdom?"

Phil: "I see now, your previous meaning, O King; I take by
your example, as
you speak to me, that instead of castigation, a path of inquiry
is used;
that the studet castigated, flees and resents, while the student
queryed,
will find within themself, the wisdom which the teacher desires
them to
find. And in this, O King, I see why you are King, and I am
philosopher;
for I admit that in my impatience, I have castigated the sincere
student;
but if you, as King, can grant me this respect, then certainly I
as
teacher, may grant respect to my students."

Sol: "It is truely so, Phil. If I am beloved as King, it is
not because of
my wrath, but because of the respect which I harbor for my fellow
man. And
it is this, which I wish to teach, far and wide, but this cannot
be taught
in a disrespectful manner. And because of this difficulty in
teaching, the
lesson of respect is all too-often the last lesson learned,
rather than the
first. Do you agree?"

Phil: "O KIng, you put into words, that which is true and
then obvious, but
which had escaped my thinking before this hearing of your wisdom.
For this
wisdom, I thank you. I am humbled, and yet, O King, by your
respect, I am
also edified."

Sol: "Hearing you speak thus, I too am gladdened, for I wish
you to spread
this wisdom as you teach, and as you wander new lands seeking
knowledge.
Now, go in joy."

[Thus spaketh King Solo-man to the court philosophers, on the
issue of
self, castigation, relationship, and respect. ]

Thoughts of suicide are nothing more than the wish to escape
one's own
HIGHEST SIDDHE, which is the power of creation itself. Our
culture, which
is the living definition of 'dualism', relegates the power of
creation to
'God'; yet, we all create our own individual dimension of reality
via this
power of creation. I speak quite literally here, NOT
metaphorically. The
'world-dream' gives us the pieces from which we then create our
own
individual 'dream' or story.

Within this self-created story, we then attempt to create a
power-source to
which we then assign the power of creation; this is
"God". Ironically, the
"god" we create is the opposite of the 'satan' which is
the devil of our
own karma. Within this self-created reality of 'dualism', any God
or god or
escape or strategy will and can only be, the opposite of that
which we have
already created. Thus, to escape one pole of our creation, we
create the
opposite. This trap of DESIRE and aversion is the nature of the
BIPOLAR
experience.

There is no answer to this dilemma to be found within the field
of the
creation which is the manifestation of our highest SIDDHE-POWER;
only the
voluntary suspension of creative power will allow the uncovering
of the
underlyiing already-always of that which already is, which of
course is our
original nature. Existing in the trap of our own creation, we
have clear
evidence that nothing will ever succeed, that no plans are worth
the
effort, and that death is the obvious solution to our dilemma; in
a sense
this is true, but there is actually no escape from creation,
except to own
it; to own creation is to understand just how to suspend the
power of
creation.

Remember... just how the past-masters of Nonduality have stated
repeatedly
to NOT become attached to ANY SIDDHE? Well... what I am saying
here should
be obvious; that we create continually, as naturally as
breathing, and as
compulsively and as needily as breathing, also. Our 'attachment'
to
'reality' is what is going on here; we are very deeply addicted
to the
SIDDHE of creation, to the extent that we hide it from ourselves,
and
assign the responsibility to 'others' such as mom, dad, God, and
Satan.
Them, we can blame and scapegoat, but as you know, such is merely
an
ongoing hallucination, a refuge from what we have so carefully
hidden from
ourselves that the acceptance of it is deemed to be the very
betrayal of
the most basic roots of 'sanity' itself.

The absolutey UNTHINKABLE is the oposite of the 'world-dream'.
That 'I am
God' is not true at all; I am not God because my creation of God
is
entirely false. God has been created from pieces of desired or
feared
aspects of the world-dream, claimed as our tribal heritage; and I
am NOT
that God. I am God far beyond anyone's wildest dreams. I am the
absolute
God of my own dimension, dream, or story; I am the only living
Being in
existence in my own dimension. All 'others' are the apparently
living
"interface with the living Universe", which is 'like' a
giant machine which
inevitably obeys my every (conscious or unconscious) whim.

Chief among my 'whims' is the desire to 'fix it' or to 'make it
right'
within the dream I dream, to 'rectify' my own creation, while
persisting in
the act of denial that it is my own creation from beginninng to
end. There
is no remedy for any ill to be experienced within my dream;
dream-diseases
of course will respond to 'dream-medicine', but the COMPULSIVELY
AND
UNCONSCIOUSLY EXERCISED power of the HIGHEST SIDDHE is the actual
disease;
the addiction to the power of creation, the attachment to this
greatest of
all SIDDHE, as warned against be the highest masters of
consciousness, is
the actual disease. Only when this compulsive and addictive power
of
creation is voluntarily suspended, will we understand the actual
mechanics
of intention as the dynamic force which commands the vast living
machine
which is the living universe itself.

As I Am the only living Being within the discreet dimension of my
own
creation, so also are you a lone and isolated creator within your
own
dimension of your own creation. You may feel this; you may also
feel the
strange, movie-like flatness of the presence of so-called 'other
people'.
Both feelings are accurrate; both feelings result from the
cancellation of
the momentum of your own karma. You have a 'hot spot' to dwell
within; this
is a blessed time for you, David. Momentum cancelled, machine
being
revealed, you may now be groping futilly for the continuation of
your "best
version" of your own dimension.

Be advised, that you can go that route. or you can sit still and
hallucinate the actuallity of the 'situation', which is this; you
have been
creating reactively, in reaction to your own creation. That
desire-aversion
ping-pong game will never stop, but it can be made harmless. To
understand
that it is 'all the same thing' may be a good goal or exercise; I
mean that
I would advise you to deliberately suspend any judgement
whatsoever, thus
to allow a glimpse of the underlying mechanism which is the
'instrumentallity of reality itself' which is your will-power
reactively
commanding a giant machine which can do anything _except_ give
you the
will-power to stop using your own will-power.

It is possible to hallucinate 'reality' while we are 'dreaming in
unreality'; do you get this point? It is the calling for a
literal
inversion of the deepest ingrained attachment of all, the
attachmnent to
'making the dream better', which attachment covers-over the
reality of the
creation and the vast living machine which impliments 'our'
will-power. To
literally suspend the unconsciously exercised power of creation
is to allow
'nirvana'; the statements of the 'masters' which state that we '
cannot
directly experience the nondual state' because there is
'literally no-one
there to experience it' are dead-wrong. I have news for everyone,
but
addiction to the highest SIDDHE will always prove me 'wrong',
time and time
again.

I am saying that to suspend the highest SIDDHE is to exercise a
type of
control so rare, so undefined, that it is unknown and thus
unspoken. I
cannot 'uncreate' creation, but I can reveal the underlying
machanism which
supports my SIDDHE. I can live consciouly in my own 'dream',
harmlessly. I
can actually 'let go' of creation to the extent that I am able. I
advise
you to think about this. I do not call for passivity; I call for
abiding,
forever.

I can go about in my story, and I can love the characters whom I
have
created. I can do this in awareness that I am always creating; I
can also
let go of the power of creation. I am aware of the addictive
nature of any
SIDDHE; and I am aware that culture is the living embodiment of
denial of
our own Godhead. To be 'in' the world-dream while not being 'of'
it is the
goal; to impliment this goal, consider that that the power of
creation is
the highest SIDDHE. If we cannot let it go, we are stuck at that
level of
unconsciousness.

Please remember that there can be no 'uncreating of creation';
there is no
'undo' command. But there is an alternative to 'quitting the
program',
which is to abide the program. Please cultivate the awareness
that you are
creating, from beginning to end; and that the puzzle you face has
Self at
the center. Self, uncreated, is the reality in which all realty
occurs. And
the knowledge-context of Siddhe and attachment is quite close to
the actual
context which is the living interface with the instrumentation of
creation
itself. It is big, alive, and friendly. I introduce you to it.

I say, that although 'it' (the sudden or gradual 'nondual
experience')
seems _new_ to each experiencer, that it is the same story being
retold for
each person. I know that we 'should' know this; as a longtime
student of
the works of Carl Jung, who discovered the underlying commonality
and
called it the 'collective unconscious' or the pool of symbolisms
which all
humans share by nature, I am aware that someone has said this
before.

We have here a confusion of the personal with the collective;
what I mean
is that so many who experience Divine Revelation or Intervention,
seems to
immediately assume that everyone else needs to be told and thus
'saved'.
This is akin to a frog evangelizing to a tadpole; it just upsets
the
tadpole. As tadpoles do not understand 'frog language', the
expressions of
the 'realized' are incomprehensible to the 'unrealized'. But it
may be
useful to draw maps of progress and to post such maps here and
there. Such
a map is an offering of one who has gone through the process of
maturation.
It is a mistake to assume that one is 'lost' or 'unsaved' if one
is not at
the designated 'endpoint'. Growth is a reality, and to grow means
accepting
that one has some state to grow _from_. But again, the entire
process is
preordained to occur; nothing is wrong, including feelings of
lostness or
fear.

Again, realization is remembering.

It is interesting to note that the most highly regarded
pronouncements of
the 'realized', which are an attempt to communicate with the
'unrealized',
are quite simple in nature; few in words, and no fancy
terminology. This is
the mature talking to the immature, in a language that the
immature can
comprehend and appreciate.

A tadple is not a frog, and the process of
maturation/transfiguration is
inevitable, if allowed (abided) to occur. The tadpole is expected
to want
to be with other tadpoles. What is the 'adolesence' of a tadpole?
Grasping
for 'certainty' while in the midst of transformation is a painful
experience; the evangelicals of any 'faith' offer 'emergency
measures' to
stabilize those who are in transformation, thus freezing the
susceptable
into a halfway state, afraid to go ahead, and unable to go back.
Our
churches are packed with examples of those who would rather
remain in this
state of suspended evolution, rather than grow into a sober and
mature
adult. For such, terror is a way of life, and the task of
'spreading the
word' serves to contagion this needless prolongation of
maturation.